Bizarre wide screen lawsuit (1 Viewer)

[Will Krupp]

Again, I've asked this question elsewhere and I just don't get it. I have the MGM Bond titles and the graphic in question is printed on the INSERT. You already have to purchase the dvd to even get to the insert so how is this considered false advertising?? Doesn't false advertising have to be an INDUCEMENT to get to you to buy something? You wouldn't even see the poorly thought out graphic until AFTER you purchased the title. Am I crazy here, or were some of the graphics printed on the outside of the package and I've just never seen them?

 

[Seth Paxton]

That's a little harsh. MGM got it wrong. That does not constitute a lie in my book.

I agree. If anything the liars are the people suing because they included many titles in the suit that are definitely not applicable (like non-US releases and 2.35 films).

Plus if you look over at the bits at some of the matted films you see that even then the framing is often more than just a straight matting, info is on the sides due to how the framing is done for the transfers.

He and the lawyers probably just through every title they could come up with just to give the suit some weight, to make this seem like a big, serious issue that covered half of MGM's catalog.

These guys win my douchebag for the week award, that's for sure.

PS - Great point Will.

 

[Jeff Jacobson]

I once heard about an open-matte Muppet Movie Laserdisc in which you could see the puppeteers and other stuff that was obviously not meant to be seen. Does anyone know where you can see screenshots of this? (Or does anyone have this LD that can make screenshots?) This would clearly illustrate that just because it was part of the filmed image doesn't mean it was intended to be seen.

 

[WillG]

Doesn't false advertising have to be an INDUCEMENT to get to you to buy something? You wouldn't even see the poorly thought out graphic until AFTER you purchased the title.

Not to mention that MGM has relatively few dual releases. Most of them are either Widescreen only, Full Frame only or both versions on the same disc. So it's not even like, in most cases, you buy the disc, find out the insert graphic is wrong and say "I should have bought the Full Frame version." The widescreen would be the only version available or you have the full frame version on the opposite side of the disc."

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

Does anyone know where you can see screenshots of this? (Or does anyone have this LD that can make screenshots?) This would clearly illustrate that just because it was part of the filmed image doesn't mean it was intended to be seen.

That transfer probably dates back to the early 80s. I seem to remember the RCA Selectavision CED disc (remember those?) of TMM having this problem.

Regards,

 

[Brandon Conway]

He and the lawyers probably just through every title they could come up with just to give the suit some weight, to make this seem like a big, serious issue that covered half of MGM's catalog.

I'm pretty sure that the lawsuit simply listed every film that had a similar comparison graphic used no matter what process was used to make the film. I agree that the intentions were clearly dubious at best.

 

[Jesse Skeen]

I have that Muppet Movie LD, issued by Magnetic Video in 1981- I'll have to figure out how to post a screenshot (I can record it to DVD and post that from my computer). I have the CED too but that's zoomed-in so you don't see the puppeteers on that.

 

[Nick_Scott]

I'm confused.

Probobly the best example of "Zoom-Boxing" is Ben-Hur, yet is not on the list?? The zoom-boxing was so extreme because they didn't even use the 2.76:1 prints. Instead, they used the 2:20:1 prints, and ZOOMED into make a "fake" 2.76:1 print.

Honestly, I don't like zoom-boxing either. Would I sue over it? No, but I'm actually glad someone did. I want to see movies as they appeared in the theater.

Obviously, the studios wanted the widescreen DVD to look good on smaller TVs...so they zoomed. I've noticed this practive before, and the worst part is that most 'cheapy' DVD players can zoom anyway. What shaft those of us with decent TVs and the desire to see the film as the director intended?

Nick

 

[Patrick McCart]

Honestly, I don't like zoom-boxing either. Would I sue over it? No, but I'm actually glad someone did. I want to see movies as they appeared in the theater.

Obviously, the studios wanted the widescreen DVD to look good on smaller TVs...so they zoomed. I've noticed this practive before, and the worst part is that most 'cheapy' DVD players can zoom anyway. What shaft those of us with decent TVs and the desire to see the film as the director intended?

Check some of the other posts and you'll see that it's not a problem with the actual transfers (except for Back to School). It's just packaging.

If you were to return UHF or The Producers, you'd get DVD's that look EXACTLY the same.

 

[Nick_Scott]

No, they used a 2.50:1 scope source and cropped it to be 2.70:1. Apparently, this was built into the 35mm reduction. Ben-Hur should be 2.55:1, anyways, since 2.76:1 was simply the widest aspect ratio possible for MGM Camera-65/Ultra Panavision.

So the 2.50:1 was zoom-boxed into a 2.70:1 AND is not even the correct ratio? Thats a double-whammy! I should get double the settlement now....
For the benefit of others, here is a good pic showing the Ben-Hur zoom-box: (The outer box is what was shown in the theater. The inner-box was on the DVD)

 

[Brandon Conway]

There's two reasons why Ben-Hur isn't part of this lawsuit.

1) Ben-Hur was released on DVD by Warner, not MGM. 2) Ben-Hur didn't have a misleading "Widescreen vs. Full Screen" diagram on an insert, which is what the lawsuit is about.

 

[Neal K]

Is there any evidence that there actually IS a plan to exchange these titles (just for a different cover????!!!!), or is this merely some vapor-ware site cooked up by these morons?
I simply can't believe anyone would bother if they really knew what the exchange was all about. I just hope it doesn't cause MGM to pull the plug on any titles in the pipleline that might somehow be grouped with the "offending" batch.

 

[MatthewLouwrens]

Just FYI, The Digital Bits has posted an article on the issue.

 

[Will Krupp]

Great article. The only part I disagree with is the statement that nobody is getting ripped off. MGM and the legal system are.

Say what you want about MGM--I mean, they have had more than their fair share of boneheaded moves, but some of those early inserts (on the Bond titles specifically) were some of the best inserts I have ever seen. They were wonderfully detailed, filled with ACTUAL TEXT and useful production notes. Sadly, had MGM not taken the extra step to include them, this probably would never have come up.

Anyway, enough of that. I'm putting together a lawsuit to sue Warner Home Video for the accidental placement of Stephanie Beachem's picture on the back of HORROR OF DRACULA. That picture has caused me intense mental anguish, loss of sleep, and material damage (after not finding her in the actual movie, I went on a rampage and destroyed my home theater equipment--which is NOT my fault but that of Warner Home Video and, possibly, Stephanie Beachem)

Anyone interested in joining my class action lawsuit should sign up at

ww.warnerhomevideomademecryandnowtheyaregonnapay.o rg

 

[Sean Richardson]

He and the lawyers probably just through every title they could come up with just to give the suit some weight, to make this seem like a big, serious issue that covered half of MGM's catalog.

Like all good assumptions, that's based on nothing, and wrong. The guy who sued sued over a few specific titles (I don't remember all of them, but I know 'Back To School' was one, and it clouded the whole issue because it actually *does* have framing issues; looking back at the original post, 'Hoosiers' and 'Rain Man' were on there too). When MGM settled, they decided to increase the settlement so that it included *all* of the 1.85 titles (assumably 'Bill and Ted' was a mistake, as were the titles which are only available open matte [although it's possible that there's something on them erroneously claiming that they are pan-and-scan]) so that they could not later be sued for other 1.85 titles. This way, one settlement covers their entire ass, instead of just part of it.

 

[Aaron Reynolds]

What I want to see:

You join the settlement. You send back your DVD. They put a sticker over the diagram and send it back to you.

 

[Patrick McCart]

Martin Hart offers his words on the "settlement" on his website: http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/

 

[Nick_Scott]

Martin Hart offers his words on the "settlement" on his website..

Strange... He was the one that made the Ben Hur graphic above. Seems he would support the lawsuit.

Nick

 

[Aaron Reynolds]

I don't think Ben Hur is mentioned in the lawsuit. The examples that Hart has put up show two specific titles from the lawsuit that are definitely not cropped in the widescreen example as compared to the pan & scan.

 

[John Alderson]

Damn I never knew that about Ben-Hur, and I own the thing. I don't remember any reviews talking about this at the time, was it only realized after the fact? Any talks of a new transfer?